Connect with us

Franklin Graham’s Political Dishonesty

Published

on

Franklin Graham’s Organizations Have Received Over $100,000 From Trump’s Foundation

For the better part of the year, Franklin Graham has been traveling America in a 50-state tour working feverishly to convince far right wing evangelical Christians to vote – not for any particular candidate, supposedly, but for their conscience. And apparently the son of Billy Graham, the televangelist who advised several presidents and was the face of Protestant Christianity for decades, has a surprisingly clear conscience himself, which should trouble his followers. 

Despite promising to remain non-partisan, Graham has been indirectly pushing Christians to vote for Donald Trump through his many Facebook posts – he has over 4.5 million followers on the social media site – lauding the Republican nominee. Despite that, as recently as last week, Graham claimed, “We’re not telling you who to vote for, God can do that.” But sometimes God needs a megaphone, right Rev. Graham?

Given that just a year ago Donald Trump had at best a poor relationship with the evangelical community, has demonstrated an utter inability to speak their language, and has apparent lack of desire to champion their main causes unless meeting with them face-to-face, it’s curious why Franklin Graham would so adamantly push for a President Trump.

But as the billionaire real estate mogul himself often says on the campaign trail, follow the money.

RealClearPolitics did just that.

In 2011, laying the groundwork for his presidential campaign, Donald Trump started quietly making big money donations to influential evangelicals, especially in the South, from his Donald J. Trump Foundation. 

A source who has ties to the Manhattan billionaire says Trump “was politically active starting in 2011,” and “started to make strategic donations,” RealClearPolitics reports.

“From 2011 through 2014, Trump harnessed his eponymous foundation to send at least $286,000 to influential conservative or policy groups, a RealClearPolitics review of the foundation’s tax filings found. In many cases, this flow of money corresponded to prime speaking slots or endorsements that aided Trump as he sought to recast himself as a plausible Republican candidate for president.” 

In 2012, Franklin Graham’s Billy Graham Evangelistic Association received a $100,000 donation from Trump’s Foundation. NBC News adds that Samaritan’s Purse, Franklin Graham’s Christian relief group, “got $25,000 the same year” from the Trump Foundation.

“Trump and Graham would later come together on the campaign trail, with the latter helping to shore up evangelical support at a pastors’ meeting earlier this year, and while touring Louisiana with Samaritan’s after devastating flooding wrecked havoc on the state,” NBC News reports.

“I appreciate very much Donald Trump and Mike Pence coming down,” Graham had told reporters. “That put a spotlight…on the suffering of these people.”

Family Research Council president Tony Perkins was also on hand that day, traveling with Trump and Graham. And Trump, or his foundation, gave Perkins a $100,000 check that week, purportedly for his Baptist church.

It does not appear that Franklin Graham, in his frequent Facebook posts and speeches that support Trump or attack Clinton, makes the donations from Trump’s foundation clear.

“Graham should have been more forthcoming with Trump’s donations to his groups with the same eagerness he attacks the transgender community,” Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters’ Alvin McEwen notes, referring to Graham’s recent heightened attacks against transgender Americans. “He would still be a nasty demagogue, but at least he wouldn’t be a hypocrite.”

 

Image via Facebook

 

There's a reason 10,000 people subscribe to NCRM. You can get the news before it breaks just by subscribing, plus you can learn something new every day.
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

‘Is Tulsi Next?’ Questions Swirl About Future of National Intelligence Director

Published

on

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard’s future in the Trump administration is being questioned after her top aide and “closest adviser,” Joe Kent — who served as the director of the National Counterterrorism Center — abruptly resigned in protest against the Iran war on Tuesday.

Trump White House reporter Jake Lahut commented that Kent’s resignation “puts Tulsi in an even more precarious position.”

“Embarrassing for Tulsi,” remarked Sarah Longwell, publisher of The Bulwark.

Gabbard’s standing in the administration has at times appeared tenuous, and has been questioned before, including over Iran — the reason Kent quit.

As The Hill reported last June, Gabbard’s “strength and standing within the Trump administration” were coming under question “after the president twice publicly brushed off her testimony that Iran is not close to developing a nuclear weapon, and amid reports of tensions between the two.”

Gabbard’s “anti-war stance” at the time fit in with the “MAGA movement’s aversion to getting the U.S. sucked into foreign conflicts,” although now Trump voters largely support his Iran war.

Gabbard was told by the White House to fire Kent for being a “known leaker,” but “she never did,” according to Fox News’ Aishah Hasnie, citing a senior Trump administration official. Hasnie also reported that Kent “was cut out of” the president’s intelligence briefings “months ago,” and that Kent “has not been part of any Iran planning discussions or briefings at all.”

MS NOW national security contributor Marc Polymeropoulos, a former CIA officer, called Kent’s resignation a “nuke from a true MAGA member,” and commented, the “big question, is Tulsi next?”

Michael V. Hayden Center director Larry Pfeiffer asked, “Over/under on how quickly Gabbard throws Kent under the bus at the hearing tomorrow?” Last year, Pfeiffer called Gabbard “the perfectly dangerous mix of incompetence, narcissism, sycophancy, and malign intent.”

Gabbard is slated to testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Wednesday and before the House Intelligence Committee on Thursday.

Republican former U.S. Rep. Barbara Comstock summed it up, asking, Gabbard “kept on a known leaker in a national security position?”

“Let’s face it,” she added, “Tulsi has been cut out too because she agrees with Kent – or at least always did before Trump flipped his position.”

Far-right political activist Laura Loomer, who at times has had the ear of President Trump, responded to Kent’s resignation by predicting that Gabbard “will resign next.”

 

Image via Shutterstock

 

Continue Reading

News

White House Scrambles for Damage Control After National Security Official’s Abrupt Exit

Published

on

The Trump White House is scrambling to contain fallout after Tuesday’s sudden, very public, and high-profile resignation of its top counterterrorism official — the first senior departure linked to the Iran war.

Joe Kent, who served as the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, resigned in a letter to President Trump that he posted to social media.

“I cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran. Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation,” wrote Kent, whose wife was killed by ISIS. “Until June of 2025, you understood that the wars in the Middle East were a trap that robbed America of the precious lives of our patriots and depleted the wealth and prosperity of our nation.”

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt quickly pushed back on Kent’s resignation, declaring that there are “many false claims” in his letter, including, she said, that “Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation.”

Leavitt charged that this claim “is the same false claim that Democrats and some in the liberal media have been repeating over and over.”

READ MORE: ‘Clear All Along’: Backlash Grows as Trump Aide Shrugs Off Consumer Pain From Iran War

“As President Trump has clearly and explicitly stated, he had strong and compelling evidence that Iran was going to attack the United States first.”

Just five days ago, Leavitt reportedly “declared that Iran poses no threat to the United States,” as The Daily Beast reported.

“TO BE CLEAR: No such threat from Iran to our homeland exists, and it never did,” she wrote.

On Tuesday, multiple high-profile social media accounts mocked the Press Secretary over those very remarks.

According to a New York Times report two weeks ago, Trump’s “decision to order the attack on Iran, he said, was mostly a matter of gut instinct about Iranian intentions.”

“We were having negotiations with these lunatics, and it was my opinion that they were going to attack first,” he said. “I think they were going to attack first, and I didn’t want that to happen.”

The Times added that Secretary of State Marco Rubio “had offered the opposite explanation the previous day, telling reporters that because Israel was going to act, Mr. Trump had no choice but to join what he called a ‘pre-emptive’ strike before Iran counterattacked U.S. bases and allies.”

But according to Leavitt on Tuesday, Trump’s decision to go to war against Iran was based on evidence that “was compiled from many sources and factors. President Trump would never make the decision to deploy military assets against a foreign adversary in a vacuum.”

Leavitt appeared to dismiss any other interpretations of what constitutes a threat to the nation.

READ MORE: ‘Sick, Demented, or Deranged’: Trump Issues Harshest Threat Yet Over Voter ID Bill

“The Commander-in-Chief determines what does and does not constitute a threat, because he is the one constitutionally empowered to do so – and because the American people went to the ballot box and entrusted him and him alone to make such final judgments,” she wrote.

Leavitt denounced what she called the “absurd allegation that President Trump made this decision based on the influence of others, even foreign countries,” calling it “both insulting and laughable,” despite what Secretary Rubio had said earlier.

She lashed out at Kent’s allegation that “it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby,” remarks that have been derided by both sides of the aisle.

Heath Mayo, founder of the pro-democracy center-right group Principles First, on social media on Tuesday warned his followers to not hold Kent up “as some paragon of principle.” He urged them to “recall this is the same man who flunked his congressional bid for his outspoken anti-Semitism, his ties to Nick Fuentes, and his insistence that the 2020 election was rigged.”

READ MORE: ‘He Was the Only One’: Trump Mocked for Declaring Iran’s Moves ‘Shocked’ Him

 

Image via Reuters 

 

Continue Reading

News

‘Clear All Along’: Backlash Grows as Trump Aide Shrugs Off Consumer Pain From Iran War

Published

on

A top Trump economic adviser is under fire after declaring that consumers hurt by an extended Iran war are the “last of our concerns right now.”

Despite some expert predictions of possible recession or even stagflation, Kevin Hassett, the Director of the National Economic Council (NEC), on Tuesday called the U.S. economy “very sound,” and insisted that the  Iran war “wouldn’t really disrupt the U.S. economy very much at all” if it were to continue for an extended period of time, MS NOW reported. The war is in its 18th day.

“It would hurt consumers, and we’d have to think about, if that continued, what we’d have to do about that, but that’s really the last of our concerns right now,” he said, claiming that the war is “ahead of schedule.”

Consumers are feeling the pain, especially at the pump.

As of Monday, five states were hovering near $4 a gallon and several others were seeing sharp increases. “The national average is up 80.0 cents from a month ago and is 66.1 cents per gallon higher than a year ago,” WANE reported on Monday, citing data from GasBuddy.

Critics rushed to denounce Hassett’s remarks.

“In any normal administration, a senior advisor to the President (basically) saying they don’t care that Americans are being harmed financially by something the President has done would resign before 5 pm today b/c the media outrage would be THAT extreme,” wrote one social media political commentator.

“This is what this Administration of billionaires for billionaires really thinks. The consumer is an inconvenience,” said Democratic congressional candidate Fred Wellman.

“It has been clear all along that consumers, aka the American public, are the least of this administration’s concerns,” observed Jared Ryan Sears, who writes at The Progressive Capitalist. “Fits right in with claiming that affordability is a hoax, as Americans are draining their 401ks and savings trying to stay afloat. Pretending the economy is good is a joke. Instead of creating jobs, the US has been losing jobs over the past 10 months, and GDP growth was just 0.7% last quarter. Trump has ruined the economy.”

The New Republic’s Greg Sargent called Hassett’s comment “an extremely serious political blunder” that “will end up in a lot of Dem ads.”

“If Republicans were trying to lose the midterms on purpose, they wouldn’t need to change a thing,” wrote podcaster Hemant Mehta.

 

Image via Reuters 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.